Today the NY Times has an editorial titled Prying Private Eyes, which makes the point that there are too many private contractors in the intelligence field. Their opening paragraph:
Whatever one thinks about Edward Snowden and his revelations about government snooping, the case has been a useful reminder of the extent to which the government has outsourced intelligence work to the private sector and the risks in doing so.
The Diva has both worked for government and been a contractor, so she takes a keen interest in this topic. Although the focus in on those with security clearances, I think the new interest and criticism of contractors is going to affect a wide range of specialists. The NYT Time editorial makes the point that a contractor costs 1.6 times as much as a government employee.
Your comments are invited.
Recovery Diva 
This is a good example of misleading “research.” As indicated, on a full-cost basis (including benefits), contractors are cheaper, and provide a more flexible workforce ASSUMING that normal FARs are followed and the deck hasn’t been stacked for someone’s cronies. In this regard, Congress often is the cause of problems encountered (“Ms Bureaucrat, I have this constituent [relative, campaign contributor, former staffer, lobbyist…] who is the one who should do this job. I expect you’ll give them very favorable consideration, won’t you?”).
Contractors cost more because they don’t have government benefits. We have no seniority, no health care, and only get paid when deliverables are accepted, not just because it’s Friday.
No to mention not getting paid when there is a delay or pause in the work!